update_notebook

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description discloses the write nature, optimistic locking, and configuration requirement. However, it does not detail error conditions, rate limits, or authorization specifics beyond the flag, leaving some transparency gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is highly concise with three sentences that each contribute essential information: purpose, locking mechanism, parameter requirements, and configuration. No redundancy or fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers key aspects but lacks information about return values (no output schema) and does not mention error cases like version conflicts. For a mutation tool with nested parameters, more detail on expected behavior would be beneficial.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3). The description adds the rule that at least one of name, content, or contentPath must be provided, which is not captured by the schema's optionality. This adds meaningful usage guidance.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Update an existing notebook (WRITE)' and specifies the HTTP method and spec. It distinguishes from siblings like create_notebook and delete_notebook by focusing on updates.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides guidance on when to use the tool (for updating existing notebooks) and includes important usage notes like optimistic locking, required version, and the configuration flag. It could be improved by explicitly stating when not to use it, but the context is clear given siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.